Why are creationists so against evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2015, 11:23 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:13 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 10:57 PM)RDK Wrote:  That is what Christians call a personal witness, something that has been experienced, but needs to be put to the test before the reality comes to fruit.

Please explain the the tests you have conducted. Here is a method.

Testing a hypothesis
The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated, according to Midwestern State University. It is often examined by multiple scientists to ensure the integrity and veracity of the experiment. This process can take years, and in many cases hypotheses do not go any further in the scientific method as it is difficult to gather sufficient supporting evidence.

"As a field biologist my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data, but what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question so the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science.

A null hypothesis is the name given to a hypothesis that is possibly false or has no effect. Often, during a test, the scientist will study another branch of the idea that may work, which is called an alternative hypothesis, according to the University of California, Berkeley.

During a test, the scientist may try to prove or disprove just the null hypothesis or test both the null and the alternative hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction, it is called one-tailed hypothesis. This means that the scientist believes that the outcome will be either with effect or without effect. When a hypothesis is created with no prediction to the outcome, it is called a two-tailed hypothesis because there are two possible outcomes. The outcome could be with effect or without effect, but until the testing is complete, there is no way of knowing which outcome it will be, according to The Web Center for Social Research Methods.

During testing, a scientist may come upon two types of errors. A Type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. A Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false, according to the University of California, Berkeley.

Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time. For example, relativity has been tested many times, so it is generally accepted as true, but there could be an instance, which has not been encountered, where it is not true. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis that a certain type of tomato is red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though his findings confirm his hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, his hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100 percent of the time.


Taken from this page.

Good luck! Thumbsup
The hypothesis of which you speak can be likened to personal choices that you encounter. Either your choice is null and has no effect, or it can be bad and can be thrown away. If your conclusion is good, you can keep your answer and validate your happy day away. Spiritual or physical, it makes no difference. You try something...it doesn't work you throw it away. For me, to throw away the obvious bad usually leaves a simpler set of choices to make. If it is confusing or unsubstantial,be it scientific or spiritual, it might be time to discard those ideas and start fresh...the way that a child does. Imagine the possibilities!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 11:29 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:23 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 11:13 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Please explain the the tests you have conducted. Here is a method.

Testing a hypothesis
The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated, according to Midwestern State University. It is often examined by multiple scientists to ensure the integrity and veracity of the experiment. This process can take years, and in many cases hypotheses do not go any further in the scientific method as it is difficult to gather sufficient supporting evidence.

"As a field biologist my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data, but what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question so the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science.

A null hypothesis is the name given to a hypothesis that is possibly false or has no effect. Often, during a test, the scientist will study another branch of the idea that may work, which is called an alternative hypothesis, according to the University of California, Berkeley.

During a test, the scientist may try to prove or disprove just the null hypothesis or test both the null and the alternative hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction, it is called one-tailed hypothesis. This means that the scientist believes that the outcome will be either with effect or without effect. When a hypothesis is created with no prediction to the outcome, it is called a two-tailed hypothesis because there are two possible outcomes. The outcome could be with effect or without effect, but until the testing is complete, there is no way of knowing which outcome it will be, according to The Web Center for Social Research Methods.

During testing, a scientist may come upon two types of errors. A Type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. A Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false, according to the University of California, Berkeley.

Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time. For example, relativity has been tested many times, so it is generally accepted as true, but there could be an instance, which has not been encountered, where it is not true. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis that a certain type of tomato is red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though his findings confirm his hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, his hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100 percent of the time.


Taken from this page.

Good luck! Thumbsup
The hypothesis of which you speak can be likened to personal choices that you encounter. Either your choice is null and has no effect, or it can be bad and can be thrown away. If your conclusion is good, you can keep your answer and validate your happy day away. Spiritual or physical, it makes no difference. You try something...it doesn't work you throw it away. For me, to throw away the obvious bad usually leaves a simpler set of choices to make. If it is confusing or unsubstantial,be it scientific or spiritual, it might be time to discard those ideas and start fresh...the way that a child does. Imagine the possibilities!

Your methods are severely flawed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 11:31 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:12 PM)pablo Wrote:  Horrible analogy.
Nobody is trying to use evolution to understand creation anyway. Creation didn't happen.
Creation certainly happened. The only difference here is how it got it's start. Even the evolutionary theory seeks to establish a beginning. Don't be scared off by that Christian sounding word...creation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 11:39 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:18 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 11:13 PM)RDK Wrote:  I agree that faulty ideas will lead to a bad end. Yet, good ideas can bring order back from the chaos. I prefer simple things instead of the complex. Simple can be proven easily, the complex can usually only lead to a lot of dead end pondering.

There is also such a thing as oversimplification.
Such as, replacing logical explanations with magic.
I have included no magic whatsoever. The same rules apply to you and me equally. In order to begin to understand a new concept, you have to put aside what you think you know and try a new method. What you have seen me do here is to show you what can't be, with logic/reasoning. I have not thrown the God blanket on you. You have drawn those conclusions on your own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 11:56 PM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:20 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 11:09 PM)RDK Wrote:  Trying to understand creation by looking at evolution is a lot like trying to reassemble a car after it has exploded into tiny little bits. The parts can be assembled in a myriad of ways, but not enough of the parts have been assembled to explain the cause of the explosion. So, for the pieces that have not yet been assembled, you have to try to extrapolate some conclusions to see if any of it makes sense.

You are attempting to use what is known as "Hoyle's fallacy". Just in reverse and in the wrong context.

It never works.

The "Tornado in a Junkyard" analogy is credited to Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and writer. He originally used the comparison not as an analogy for evolution, but as an argument against abiogenesis. He felt that the improbability of even the simplest life form arising from non-living matter was too great. However, his analogy lives on in origins debate despite its original context.

Just as you have done here. Proper study of your subject matter is your friend. Not your enemy. These debates are far more interesting when the adversary actually understands the arguments.

Can you do better to make it more interesting for us?
If knowledge and communication were perfect, there would be no need for this site. Of course we don't all see things the same way. That's why we need so many words (and insults) to convey our meanings. This is all about information. Most communication is laced with half-truths unknowingly transmitted to the receiver. If we can prove a point, so much the better. It takes years sometimes to form opinions, and those held most dear are hard to break. Please don't be offended by my observations. Some will agree with a point, others not. This should not be a knowledge war anyway, just an exchange of principles. We should ponder on what everyone has to offer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 12:09 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:13 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 10:58 PM)DLJ Wrote:  And there, from the mouth of the horse, we have the reason why people are leaving christianity in droves.

Well done.
I agree that faulty ideas will lead to a bad end. Yet, good ideas can bring order back from the chaos. I prefer simple things instead of the complex. Simple can be proven easily, the complex can usually only lead to a lot of dead end pondering.

Oh! I completely agree.

That's why I'm so much in awe of Darwin and Wallace for spotting the simple mechanism that explains the diversity of life.

A complex entity, like a god or a goddess (who by definition must be more complex than their creation) has indeed led to much speculation over the centuries but ultimately has turned out to be a dead end.

I'm glad you joined the forum, we agree on so much.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
30-06-2015, 12:13 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:56 PM)RDK Wrote:  If knowledge and communication were perfect, there would be no need for this site. Of course we don't all see things the same way. That's why we need so many words (and insults) to convey our meanings. This is all about information. Most communication is laced with half-truths unknowingly transmitted to the receiver. If we can prove a point, so much the better. It takes years sometimes to form opinions, and those held most dear are hard to break. Please don't be offended by my observations. Some will agree with a point, others not. This should not be a knowledge war anyway, just an exchange of principles. We should ponder on what everyone has to offer.


And so again no proof is offered, no explanation as to how the tests are performed is offered.....


[Image: fail33jt5.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
30-06-2015, 12:54 AM (This post was last modified: 30-06-2015 01:07 AM by Brian37.)
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(07-05-2015 07:26 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 07:21 PM)peacefrog Wrote:  Of course, the answer to us is obvious. But firm their perspective, why are they so opposed to investigating it? Why do they not believe that, if creationism was true, the evidence would lead scientists to that conclusion?

I have a hypothesis. I think it is because if we evolved and were not created then that means we have no intrinsic value. If there is no god to value us we must earn our own value. I think religion is all about the desire for the unearned. It is the desire for unearned greatness, unearned moral stature, unearned knowledge, unearned love and unearned forgiveness.

It is not just a hypothesis, it is a fact. We have NO value to this planet or the universe. We are merely outcomes, mere blips in a giant weather pattern. Religion is really nothing more than a human reflection of narcissism and insecurity.

Theists of all religions, stupidly think that if "all this" means nothing that means we are meaningless trash. My friend Bob, explained why this is a stupid, and dangerous fatalistic attitude. It precludes one from looking to the future.

He has put it like this "You go to movies knowing they will end, but you still go, even not knowing the outcome. You go to sporting events not knowing who will win or lose, You go to music concerts knowing they will end"

So why does life have to be viewed differently? You live life, not to win brownie points for a fictional utopia. You live life because that is what you do. Worrying about a life of non existence after you die, is like worrying about your non existence before your were born.

Religion exists for the same reason kids believe in Santa. For the same reason you can convince a kid the bowl of covered olives, in the dark Halloween staged kitchen, gets the kid to believe they are eyeballs when they touch them. It is a delusion based on gap filling. Our species perceptions of reality are notoriously flawed.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Brian37's post
30-06-2015, 01:03 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 11:56 PM)RDK Wrote:  If knowledge and communication were perfect, there would be no need for this site. Of course we don't all see things the same way. That's why we need so many words (and insults) to convey our meanings. This is all about information. Most communication is laced with half-truths unknowingly transmitted to the receiver. If we can prove a point, so much the better. It takes years sometimes to form opinions, and those held most dear are hard to break. Please don't be offended by my observations. Some will agree with a point, others not. This should not be a knowledge war anyway, just an exchange of principles. We should ponder on what everyone has to offer.

What you say is true... which is why I find people who're dead certain that X happened in direct contradiction of established scientific theory disturbing, especially when they themselves do not demonstrate competence to challenge the said theory. I mean, the scientific method *works*, ya know.

If you're gonna say that evolution theory is wrong you're either gonna have to a. challenge the whole scientific method, by asserting and then proving that it is not the best way to get knowledge, *or* you're gonna have to b. challenge *specifics* of evolution theory by *doing better science*. If you take either option a or b then loads of scientists will be absolutely delighted and you will be admired and feted from here to next week.

What will not fly is to merely assert that the Bible is all you need, without providing any convincing reason for this to be the case.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like morondog's post
30-06-2015, 06:38 AM
RE: Why are creationists so against evolution?
(29-06-2015 10:33 PM)RDK Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 10:46 AM)Anjele Wrote:  The whole Christian belief system is a house of cards...if you start with the base - the creation story - the whole thing falls down.

You would think the smarter thing for them to do is to accept evolution (as any intelligent non-brainwashed person would do) and figure out a PR spin on how evolution is all part of their god's plan. They do that with other aspects of the myth.

A (Christian ) system based on faulty principles is certainly a "house of cards". The methodology through a lot of the Bible is incredulous. First God creates creatures out of love then finds fault with those same creations, finds reasons to destroy them unless they follow after a lot of cruel laws which condemn them, and later changes His mind to say He is sorry about it all, and that He loves us after all. I am a Christian, and that mentality is a load of crap. This world is designed to be a mixed up trial place. It is everything opposite to that which could be so simple and beautiful.
Yet, we can decide to be kind anyway, knowing inside that anything else is not worth remembering. Men get a hold of ideas and twist them up until they make no sense anymore. All of you have a sense of what is right even if you do otherwise.
A world with this many problems-I am not surprised by the many contradictory sayings throughout (holy) books. The only truth in there will be something good that we can say or do for others. The rest is just trash. Sort it out with definitions of love. We can't be held accountable for things that we do not understand. We just try our best and try to hold on to valuable things.

So, basically, if you are a good person there's really no need to play the religion game, nor try to force others to play.

If someone needs a book full of horrors and contradictions to be a good person they really aren't a good person.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: